The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew nomination, therefore satisfying criterion 1 of Speedy Keep applicability/reasons. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MicroBilt Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed without satisfying NCORP. Holding company notability not inherited from subsidiaries. Rhadow (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I changed my mind. Rhadow (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is doing something questionable.
First a tag was placed with several conditions:

• please edit this page

I did - adding 2 sections, one about MicroBilt Merchant Services, the other about MicroBilt Financial Services. Since both use the "holding company" name, that should count.

• I have 7 days

Escalated to Article-for-deletion 16 minutes after I made my first edit

• Nominator: Please consider notifying the author

was not done

The above is regarding [1]

The article was tagged sixteen minutes after my first edit
saying that I should research among:

(Find sources: "MicroBilt Corporation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I chose the one on the right, WP reference, and among the first 3 listed,

• the oldest was that the NY Times reported on their earnings.
• The newest was that they were the subject of a lawsuit (2017, in NJ).

Earnings worthy of NY Times attention and a case to be tried by the State of NJ Judiciary,

and THAT IS NOT NOTABLE?

Why the KILL IT approach? Why not FILL IT? Trink24 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Hello Trink24 -- We are talking here about the subject, not about you or the quality of your work. Nothing is wrong. As this article was originally published, IMO it did not meet WP:GNG, keeping in mind specifically that a holding company does not inherit the notability of its subsidiaries. Yes, I promptly tagged it. Today is a holiday; I was watching new articles. A PROD works for seven days. You removed the PROD and any further review. My take was that the article needed more eyes. Now it will get more eyes. If you add the two articles you mentioned: about a lawsuit and earnings, maybe others will disagree with me. Rhadow (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the NEWS search was basically PR/Press Release (interesting: PR really stands for Public Relations, a Marketing/Advertising/Sales specialty, but the issuing of Press Releases as "PR" is an established technique).

I didn't have much hope for the BOOKS link in the DELETE nomination, but... MicroBilt is given credit for data (an input to ...) and information (the result of crunching data, and THINKING). Anyway: discounting "DIRECTORY" types of listings, I found:

• Understanding Business Valuation: A Practical Guide to Valuing Small ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1937350630 (published 2016)

• How to Sell a Business for the Most Money Third Edition:

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=145662119X (2014)

• Valuing Professional Practices and Licenses - Page 7-57

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1454827149 (2013)

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22MicroBilt+Corporation%22 found 5 non-trivials beyond the above 3, and also 2 trivials -- on the first Google page.

From reading Wiki guidelines, I see:

• notability can't be fixed by editing. A bad article can't harm notability.
• it's up to the article writer to make notability obvious.

Unless the wording allowing me to remove the PROD notice is improved, to make it clear that it's a protection from AfD nominations, a fatalistic approach might be

• For now, leave it to the jury, and thanks in advance for those taking the time to vote.
  -or-
• Await a hint that editing will make a difference

Trink24 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than wait with a blindfold for someone to click on the NYT immediately to the left of the WP reference I mentioned/used above... I've done a bit more homework, and... the article now mentions NYTimes earnings coverage and a 2014 comparison, in a positive light, of MicroBilt data versus "the three major credit reporting bureaus." Cigarette? (I don't smoke) Cigar? Trink24 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.